[quote author=Milito link=board=3;threadid=292;start=30#2322 date=1059581024]<br />Picking up accents appears to be more insidious than it first appears.... You hang out with people who speak with a different accent than your own, and your own morphs into something closer to theirs.... you write in terminology that uses an "accent" different from your own, and again, you morph! I think we observed that Episcopus' word order is doing the same thing....[/quote]<br /><br />I see. So I be saying stuff like Episcopus soon, I be ragging on anyone who disses D'Ooge, I mean Doctor D'Ooge, and I be using his word order and going what the truck? <br /><br />You're right about how we morph. I notice I pick up phrases from people I know and I start using them as my own.

[quote author=Episcopus link=board=3;threadid=292;start=30#2328 date=1059585970]<br />although I be a beginner it is a reflex mental reaction. <br /><br />[/quote]<br /><br />"although I be" = ENGLISH SUBJUNCTIVE. <br /><br /><br />And if you want that I say (subj. again) "(tr)uck" instead of "truck" then I shall. <br /><br />And when have I said "Disses"? <br /><br />I am sure milito to have meant something else in his saying "word order of Episcopus" to be strange! Perhaps am I influenced by the german word order; however I am not friends with any germans.<br /><br />You think the people of South Wales to use the English Subjunctive? <br />I mean, they don't exactly be creative. "I'm, you're, etc" - the average contractions. Apart from "you was" which I never use. <br /><br />Not conjugating "to be" has nothing to faire with the word order. <br /><br />If you were to speak with the average bishop here, then you would realise me to speak quite differently from every one else.<br /><br />You insult Dr. D'Ooge. Go not thither! I shan't say "what the truck"; for that would render you unpleasurable in your reply -in its stead shall I "**** YOU" say. <br /><br /><br />

Actually, Episcopus, I was referring to a post in a different thread somewhere way back in the mists of time (maybe a week ago) where you yourself, as I recall, were being amused at the way you occasionally found yourself altering your English word order because you'd been writing in Latin word order so much...... (Come to think of it, I believe the thread was actually on word order....)<br /><br />And I salute your efforts to bring the English subjunctive back from the brink of extinction! If it were not (More subjunctive!) for conditional sentences, it would likely have vanished entirely - and it's working on walking out of the language in those cases, too....<br /><br />Kilmeny

[quote author=Milito link=board=3;threadid=292;start=30#2313 date=1059579775]<br />[quote author=benissimus link=board=3;threadid=292;start=30#2267 date=1059536275]<br />I think it is nice and simple if you just say "Nemo! Qui dicat ut esse zealot malum sit?" <br /><br />No one! Could he who would speak as a zealot be bad?<br /><br />I totally missed out on the question mark by the way. :-\ Figures I would look at the grammar and miss the most simple of punctuation!<br />[/quote]<br /><br />I think you're right - putting the FIRST verb into the subjunctive solves the problem nicely. Much thanks.<br /><br />As for the punctuation.... You're obviously thinking like a true Latin-writer, who wouldn't have used one at all! (And who would probably have wondered what the funny-looking letter was, if he'd seen one....)<br /><br />Kilmeny<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Sorry, that still doesn't sound right to me. Now it says: Could he say in order that it is bad to be a zealot? Now, I'm not a native speaker of English (nor of Latin ), but that doesn't make sense, does it?<br />'Could he who would speak as a zealot be bad?' would be 'Qui zealote loquitur malus sit?' (with zealote as adverb from the newly coined adjective zealotus). I'm not sure if 'loquitur' should be indicative or subjunctive.<br /><br />Vale.<br /><br />Ptolemaios

"qu'on aie un orgie du subjonctif!"<br />"that one (may) have a subjunctive orgie"<br /><br />The only way I know how to use english subjunctive is because the french makes so much sense. <br /><br />But still people say "If it was not..." <br /><br />Incidentally in conditionals french use not subj - in stead it is IMP+CON or for certain PR+FUT<br /><br />Anyway only hundred pageseses to go before the subjunctive<br />in Latin I can not wait. <br />

What is wrong with this?: Qui dicat ut esse zealot malum sit<br />I think the esse should probably be omitted, but other than that...<br /><br />Qui zealote loquitur malus sit?<br />This would mean "He who speaks as a zealot may be bad?" which seems reasonable as well.<br /><br />_________________________________________________<br /><br />Sorry to burst your bubble Episcopus, but there is a little bit more to the "be" subjunctive than just not conjugating :-q

I've got some trouble understanding the English moods; in my Dutch grammar it said that the pr. subj. could be used as a potentialis. I thought that was 'could' in English, but what's 'may' then?<br /><br />How would you translate 'Qui dicat ut zealot malum sit?' I'd say 'Who could say in order that zealot is bad?' (and zealot had to be neuter then). Or is there some special Latin idiomatic expression (like fit ut) that I've forgotten?<br /><br />Vale.<br /><br />Ptolemaios

[quote author=benissimus link=board=3;threadid=292;start=45#2364 date=1059604177]<br /><br />Sorry to burst your bubble Episcopus, but there is a little bit more to the "be" subjunctive than just not conjugating :-q<br />[/quote]<br /><br />What mean you by that?<br /><br />

[quote author=Ptolemaios link=board=3;threadid=292;start=45#2418 date=1059651457]<br />I've got some trouble understanding the English moods; in my Dutch grammar it said that the pr. subj. could be used as a potentialis. I thought that was 'could' in English, but what's 'may' then?<br /><br />How would you translate 'Qui dicat ut zealot malum sit?' I'd say 'Who could say in order that zealot is bad?' (and zealot had to be neuter then). Or is there some special Latin idiomatic expression (like fit ut) that I've forgotten?<br /><br />Vale.<br /><br />Ptolemaios<br />[/quote]<br /><br />I would translate it as "Who may say that a zealot is bad?"<br /><br />It's a problem with the disappearing subjunctive in English.... If you look at the subjunctive as a mood of possibility, rather than fact (indicative), then often it is expressed in English by adding (yet another) auxilliary verb "may", past tense "might". In conditional situations ("if"..."then") it can be translated as "should"..."would", where "should" loses implications of obligation, and replaces them with implications of possibility. In that case, you might replace it with "were to.... (whatever)" equally correctly. (Eg: "If I should provide bad grammar examples, I would be corrected" or "If I were to provide bad grammar examples....")<br /><br />"Could" would be the subjunctive of "can" or "to be able". With an "if" in front, if often implies that whatever the main verb is cannot occur (eg: "If I could fly I wouldn't need airplanes") whereas without, it loses the the impossibility implication (eg: "I could fly, but I don't feel like it right now").<br /><br />After learning French and Latin, I have to admit to being amused by English verb structure. English has a simple past tense and a simple present tense, but no simple future tense - you have to toss in an extra verb with the implication of intention ("will") or motion toward ("going") to express a future action. The subjunctive, as a separate means of expressing possibilities that aren't necessarily fact, is just about extinct. I can't help but wonder if the way a language is structured reflects the mind-set of the people who use it.... (Eg: The original English-speakers knew that the past had happened, knew that the present was here, but had NO confidence that there would be a future, so didn't express it? English-speakers now don't like possibilities, and want cold hard facts alone, so have lost the possibility mood of the language?)<br /><br />Okay, off soapbox again....<br /><br />Kilmeny

[quote author=Ptolemaios link=board=3;threadid=292;start=30#2348 date=1059592281]<br />Sorry, that still doesn't sound right to me. Now it says: Could he say in order that it is bad to be a zealot? Now, I'm not a native speaker of English (nor of Latin ), but that doesn't make sense, does it?<br />'Could he who would speak as a zealot be bad?' would be 'Qui zealote loquitur malus sit?' (with zealote as adverb from the newly coined adjective zealotus). I'm not sure if 'loquitur' should be indicative or subjunctive.<br /><br />Vale.<br /><br />Ptolemaios<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Well, "ut" doesn't necessarily mean "in order that". It can also mean just plain "that" or "so". (Or a whole lot of other things, but I think that typing out the whole dictionary isn't really necessary .......) Also, without an "if" in there somewhere I'm reluctant to use a would/should, and without some form of "posse" I'm reluctant to use "could". After much grammatical soul-searching, I conclude that the problem lies in my incorrect understanding of indirect discourse, combined with some fuzzy memory that said it should be in the subjunctive tense, and a desire to translate the English "that" in the "He said that...." type of phrase. That "that" doesn't translate into Latin, so the "ut" wasn't required, and based on abrupt review, I'm now concluding that there shouldn't have been anything subjunctive in there at all...... <br /><br />This is how I turn "Qui dicat ut zealot malum sit" into something like "Who may say that a zealot may be bad". (Or "is bad"....)<br /><br />If "zealote" is an adverb, it would be "zealously", I think..... So "Qui zealote loquitur malus sit" I would translate as "Who zealously says it is bad?"<br /><br />But since I originally wanted to ask why it was assumed that being a zealot equated to something bad, I think I'm either going to have to go back to the drawing board on the sentence, or leave it be with the accusative + infinitive construction.....<br /><br />Kilmeny

Sorry about my repeated questions; I thought my knowledge of Latin had some gaps & I tried to fill them up.<br /><br />I know that "ut" doesn't necessarily mean in order that, but I think it can't introduce indirect discourse.<br />In "Qui zealote loquitur malus sit?" the 'qui zealote loquitur'-clause was supposed to be subject; my english-latin dictionary suggested loquor (a deponens) for 'to speak'; I intended it to mean "He who speaks in a zealoty way". As 'malus' is Nom. Masc. Sg., it can't refer to any 'it', but goes with the qui-clause.<br /><br />As I've bored even myself with these comments , this should probably be my final post ont the qui dicat ut-sentence.<br /><br />Vale<br /><br />Ptolemaios

Yep, that's the classicist's way: writing as much as possible about as few lines as possible. Have you ever seen a commentary on a Greek or Latin text that wasn't twice as long as the original work?<br /><br />Vale.<br /><br />Ptolemaios

heh yeah... <br /><br />I like to think my using English subjunctive is correct, although I sometimes write "I be" in the indicative after listening to rap ;D<br />However this Latin subjunctive looks insanely difficult...all this over one sentence. Irrespective of this I can not wait!

If that be true, I want not to think about the difficulty of the Greek Subjunctive - that of Latin seems hard enough. <br /><br />But I still can not wait! it will be a challenge and I love challengeses ;D

The only problem I have with the subjunctive is figuring out when to use it......... It's just used so seldom in English, isn't talked about in English grammars, and only showed up for the last year I was in high school French, so I never did get the concept of "what a subjunctive is" cleared up absolutely....<br /><br />I will say this though - reading Latin is one majorly effective way to get used (and even reconciled ) to all sorts of grammar subjects...... I now recognize a subjunctive 9 times out of 10 from 30 paces, though I'm sure I couldn't always say why it's subjunctive. I'm trying to work that out, when I trip over them, as I go now....<br /><br />Kilmeny

My English teacher thinks himself to be great...well, he is a great teacher and very highly thought of nationwide! and I wonder which explanation he would give me as to the usage of the subjunctive and its meaning(s).<br /><br />For example, for "until" in English, one uses indicative and thinks not even briefly about using the subjunctive. <br />However in french, "jusqu'à ce que" takes subjunctive because the speaker knows not for a fact whether he be fulfilling the "before until" part thus what he may do after the until is not a fact, just imagination or perhaps a wish. <br /><br />eg "Je vous donnerai du plaisir jusqu'à ce que vous soyez fatiguée"<br /><br />I shall give you pleasure until (that) you be tired. <br /><br />Really if one were to say here "until you are tired" that would be more incorrect than correct for it is not certain that the speaker will make the woman tired (or give her pleasure for that matter but that's irrelevant as it's fut. indic.).<br /><br />And milito - I can not wait until the Latin subjunctive (5th time?) because I KNOW that it WILL make me recognise and understand the subjunctiveseses of all languages so much better...the general concept of the subjunctive; although the french subjunctive HAVE done it well for me. (Sounds a little offbeat, however - usually a "may" would go in there to make it sound more...english and less welsh.)<br /><br />Any person would-she care to explain why "although" takes subjunctive; or, to make her recognise it "although I may be..."? I still understand not fully the subjunctivity of "although".<br /><br />Oh well I is rambling too much those are a few of my strange thoughts on the subjunctive and how english should bring it back dammit. <br /> <br /><br /><br />

Just because Greek, Latin, and French have a subjunctive why does that mean English has to have one? It doesn't.<br /><br />What is a subjunctive? If we define it as an inflected form of the verb used to express unreality, then English doesn't have one, and has no need of one. It uses modal verbs instead. There are some forms (more common in US English than in UK English) which historically derive from a subjunctive but look exactly like the base form of the verb and are used in indirect commands. It's another example of forcing English grammar into the mould of Latin grammar. Latin grammar, as I'm sure we'll all agree, is a magnificent structure -- for Latin, not English.

[quote author=bingley link=board=3;threadid=292;start=45#2518 date=1059787760]<br />Just because Greek, Latin, and French have a subjunctive why does that mean English has to have one? It doesn't.<br /><br />[/quote]<br /><br />Modal verbs, I agree, do the trick for English but some are just ambiguous and annoying for any one learning English as a second language - "should" - what does that mean? <br /><br />You should do your homework...<br />Should you have any problems, I read it as 'if you be to have problems...' - but I guess myself to read things very strangely :-[<br /><br />I am saying that sometimes English uses indicative without even a modal where technically subjunctive should be used (I am far far from an expert but it's easy to point out where even for persons such as me who haven't studied the Latin subjunctive :'( )

[quote author=Episcopus link=board=3;threadid=292;start=45#2533 date=1059829647]<br /><br /><br />I am saying that sometimes English uses indicative without even a modal where technically subjunctive should be used (I am far far from an expert but it's easy to point out where even for persons such as me who haven't studied the Latin subjunctive :'( )<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Who says "technically subjunctive should be used"? Why should it be used? Because Latin or French would use the subjunctive at that point?

[quote author=bingley link=board=3;threadid=292;start=45#2518 date=1059787760]<br />Just because Greek, Latin, and French have a subjunctive why does that mean English has to have one? It doesn't.<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Actually, English does have a subjunctive; it's just dying out, in part because our verbs don't inflect much anymore. About the only place you see it now is in forms of "to be" in conditional statements. Example: indicitive = "I was going to a bookstore"; subjuctive = "If I were to go to a bookstore". But because we're drummed so often with the idea that "I was" (and "he/she/it was"....) is the correct use of the verb, many people don't use the subjunctive form, because it "doesn't fit the rule". It's the same thing you see when people say "He went with Joe and I" instead of "and me" - you hear so often that "Me and Fred are doing...." is wrong, that you overcorrect when it isn't....<br /><br />(Off soapbox again.....)<br /><br />Kilmeny

Well, admittedly using "awareness" (not the actual whole thing) of the french subjunctive I tried to explain why I, still in formal english writing, use the subjunctive. Even with the indicative, I'm sure you to have noticed, I use "I be" as it is the equivalent of "If I was going, I would..." (which actually refers to something in the past "If I was going on holiday, I would have booked a flight" as opposed to "If I were to go on holiday, I would book a flight".<br /><br />/slaps himself <br /><br />And teachers always say, to be/sound astoundingly formal/intelligent, "you may give the letter to myself or another member of staff", in the knowledge that everyone assumes it to be correct as it sounds clever. <br />

[quote author=benissimus link=board=3;threadid=292;start=60#2548 date=1059842494]<br />Hehe... interesting to see how different the first and last post in this thread are. Curse that new rule!<br />[/quote]<br /><br /> :-X :-X